Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:53:22.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public perception of emergency research: a questionnaire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2005

M. G. Booth ,
A. Lind ,
E. Read  and
J. Kinsella
M. G. Booth
Affiliation:
Royal Infirmary, Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
A. Lind
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Current address: Department of General Medicine, Swindon Great Western Hospital, Swindon, UK.
E. Read
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Current address: Whakatane Hospital, Whakatane, New Zealand.
J. Kinsella
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: Emergency research (e.g. into cardiac arrest or head injury) needs to start immediately, often before the patient, or relative, can give consent. A recent European Directive will prevent or severely limit emergency research. Little is known about the public view of emergency research. Methods: Patients attending the outpatient department of a university teaching hospital were invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained and participants gave written informed consent. Results: Three hundred and five of 362 respondents (84%) thought emergency research should start in the absence of consent but should be obtained as soon as possible from the nearest relative (82%) or the patient (90%). If consent was refused 62% felt the data could still be used, as did 81% if the patient died. Despite 62% approving of public meetings to publicize emergency research only 35% would attend one. A previously recommended list of preconditions was endorsed: no other consentable group (47%); advance consent impossible (55%); unable to delay treatment (73%); consent to be obtained as soon as possible (88%); an adequately designed protocol (74%); Ethics Committee approval (71%); patient may benefit (85%); future patients may benefit (92%) and that the treatment was necessary and could not be delayed (91%). Conclusions: Emergency research must occur to improve the outcome from life-threatening illness or injury. The majority of people are aware of the importance of this research and that the normal rules of consent are not applicable. Alternative methods of recruitment need to be investigated.

Keywords

ETHICSEMERGENCY MEDICINERESEARCH DESIGN
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 22 , Issue 12 , December 2005 , pp. 933 - 937
Copyright
© 2005 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

MRC CRASH Trial National Coordinators. Update on progress in the international, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of corticosteroids after significant head injury. Curr Opin Crit Care 2003; 9: 92–97.
Lötjönen S. Medical research in clinical emergency settings in Europe. J Med Ethics 2002; 28: 183–187.Google Scholar
British Medical Association. Organ donation in the 21st century: time for a consolidated approach. www.bma.org/ ap.nsf/Content/organ+donation+in+the+21st+century
European Union Directive 2001/20/EC on Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials. Off J Eur Commun 2001; L121: 34–44.
General Medical Council. Guidance on good practice. http://www.gmc-uk.org/standards/default.htm
Olson CM. The letter of the spirit; consent for research in CPR. JAMA 1994; 271: 1445–1447.Google Scholar
Biros MH, Lewis RJ, Olson CM, Runge JW, Cummins RO, Fost N. Informed consent in emergency research: consensus statement from the coalition conference of acute resuscitation and critical care researchers. JAMA 1995; 273: 1283–1287.Google Scholar
Nightingale SL. Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research (from the Food and Drug Administration). JAMA 1996; 276: 1632.Google Scholar